Open intellectual property. In a nutshell, allow open access to the detailed blue prints of the cars and individual components. Not far off the concept of customer parts but instead they see the design of each part and how they go together - that way each team can make the components themselves and allows them to make a "frankenstein" car. Its a similar idea to what happens in road cycling - all bike parts and accessories (from the bike itself through to helmets, shoes and the lycra they wear) have to be on the open market limiting any mechanical advantage a ride may have.

That's almost a spec series then, isn't it? Against the whole idea of an F1 car

No - remember it can take weeks for components to be made. If (for example) Merc bring a new design of front wing to a race, other teams would be unlikely to have their version of it ready to race until ~4-6 weeks later - at least 2 races by which time Merc would probably be on a new revision of it anyway. It does turn the whole of F1 into a complete development race.

Ok, I didn't think of that. It still sounds like they'd be copying each other all the time, so I am not sure if I'd like that to be honest. All the smaller teams would have a Merc front wing two races down the line!!

Open intellectual property. In a nutshell, allow open access to the detailed blue prints of the cars and individual components. Not far off the concept of customer parts but instead they see the design of each part and how they go together - that way each team can make the components themselves and allows them to make a "frankenstein" car. Its a similar idea to what happens in road cycling - all bike parts and accessories (from the bike itself through to helmets, shoes and the lycra they wear) have to be on the open market limiting any mechanical advantage a ride may have.

That's almost a spec series then, isn't it? Against the whole idea of an F1 car

No - remember it can take weeks for components to be made. If (for example) Merc bring a new design of front wing to a race, other teams would be unlikely to have their version of it ready to race until ~4-6 weeks later - at least 2 races by which time Merc would probably be on a new revision of it anyway. It does turn the whole of F1 into a complete development race.

Ok, I didn't think of that. It still sounds like they'd be copying each other all the time, so I am not sure if I'd like that to be honest. All the smaller teams would have a Merc front wing two races down the line!!

They copy each other all the time anyway. Its why after several years of steady regulations you tend to see a convergence of designs and the timesheets much closer together. In doing it this way it simply speeds up the process.

They copy each other all the time anyway. Its why after several years of steady regulations you tend to see a convergence of designs and the timesheets much closer together. In doing it this way it simply speeds up the process.

The problem is that this season is not showing a convergence on the timesheets, Mercedes seem further ahead than before, (i.e. 2017 and 2018), and the midfield have not caught up in any significant way. What is worse is that of the seven midfield teams going into this season, zero of them have made any noticeable gains on the front team. They have effectively seven bites at the cherry so surely from the law of averages at least one or two of them would have found some lucky breakthroughs to at least get within a second of Mercedes instead of all of them consitently being 1.5+ seconds off the pace?

The fact that year after year, zero out of seven have made any significant gains on the lead team, is very worrying indeed. For example, even a team like Stewart could go from being well off the pace in 1997 and 1998, to being moderately competitive in 1999, so previous eras were better for season-on-season shake-ups of the running order.

In modern day F1, a team like McLaren have either been in the lower midfield or middle of midfield during this whole era, (2014 onwards), and they seem completely unable to make any significant strides forwards, not even just for one flash in the pan season say, where they are randomly third fastest team 0.6 seconds off the ultimate pace for that year for example.

What I mean by this is that the Monaco GP would always be a race that was mostly won on the Saturday, (it's fairly difficult to get past at the start with a short run to the first corner, so pole position was vital, e.g. Trulli in 2004). I accepted this and didn't mind it as it seemed ok to me for there to be a race where overtaking was almost impossible and for qualifying to be the main 'race'. For only one race a season, it was acceptable for it to work differently than the 16+ other races purely for variety's sake.

However this did mean that I generally wouldn't be too fussed about watching all of the race if it was dry weather. Once I saw the start and the opening lap or two, the race didn't have an awful lot going on except perhaps a bit later during the pit stops there might be a position change or two, so I could safely go and do something else and only sporadically pop back into the living room to check for any updates. I would consume the Monaco Grand Prix weekend with a certain pattern that I will call 'Monaco GP style' for reference later.

The worrying thing for me with modern day F1 is that most of the races these days could easily just be another 'Monaco' in terms of how I consume the races. So at Barcelona this weekend, after the first couple of laps I knew the race was essentially finished as a spectacle and that I had no real need to watch any more, I could be fairly confident that I would miss nothing of significance and so I just switched over to watch the Premier League final day. Low and behold I missed nothing bar a crash between two midfield cars and got back an hour and a half of my life as a result. It is a worrying trend that I can basically apply my 'Monaco GP style' consumption method to most of these non-Monaco races these days; the F1 World Championship is turning into 21 races at Monaco essentially.

Now I do need to watch the first couple of laps to tell if the lead cars are possibly going to race each other, (like in Bahrain this year), but I've seen enough races now to tell pretty quickly if the race is going to be a dull procession or not, (regardless of the circuit), and unfortunately far more often than not I can see a procession in the making.

Yes, previous eras weren't always super exciting either, but at least there was poor reliability to shake up the race results somewhat, (even the most reliable cars usually had a 20% chance of breaking down with some cars failing more than 50% of the time). In addition there were more race-ending mistakes with cars being stuck in the gravel etc. as drivers were spinning off pushing to the limit instead of conserving tyres; so the results were far less predictable and you couldn't just assume it was 'race over' after watching the first couple of laps. In modern F1, the forced reliability with the multiple-race engine rules etc. just make the racing feel so optimised and stale.

I am not a hater, I want F1 to be fantastic and exciting, but I can't deny what I see in front of me and it really is a nasty end product that F1 is producing at the moment.

What I mean by this is that the Monaco GP would always be a race that was mostly won on the Saturday, (it's fairly difficult to get past at the start with a short run to the first corner, so pole position was vital, e.g. Trulli in 2004). I accepted this and didn't mind it as it seemed ok to me for there to be a race where overtaking was almost impossible and for qualifying to be the main 'race'. For only one race a season, it was acceptable for it to work differently than the 16+ other races purely for variety's sake.

However this did mean that I generally wouldn't be too fussed about watching all of the race if it was dry weather. Once I saw the start and the opening lap or two, the race didn't have an awful lot going on except perhaps a bit later during the pit stops there might be a position change or two, so I could safely go and do something else and only sporadically pop back into the living room to check for any updates. I would consume the Monaco Grand Prix weekend with a certain pattern that I will call 'Monaco GP style' for reference later.

The worrying thing for me with modern day F1 is that most of the races these days could easily just be another 'Monaco' in terms of how I consume the races. So at Barcelona this weekend, after the first couple of laps I knew the race was essentially finished as a spectacle and that I had no real need to watch any more, I could be fairly confident that I would miss nothing of significance and so I just switched over to watch the Premier League final day. Low and behold I missed nothing bar a crash between two midfield cars and got back an hour and a half of my life as a result. It is a worrying trend that I can basically apply my 'Monaco GP style' consumption method to most of these non-Monaco races these days; the F1 World Championship is turning into 21 races at Monaco essentially.

Now I do need to watch the first couple of laps to tell if the lead cars are possibly going to race each other, (like in Bahrain this year), but I've seen enough races now to tell pretty quickly if the race is going to be a dull procession or not, (regardless of the circuit), and unfortunately far more often than not I can see a procession in the making.

Yes, previous eras weren't always super exciting either, but at least there was poor reliability to shake up the race results somewhat, (even the most reliable cars usually had a 20% chance of breaking down with some cars failing more than 50% of the time). In addition there were more race-ending mistakes with cars being stuck in the gravel etc. as drivers were spinning off pushing to the limit instead of conserving tyres; so the results were far less predictable and you couldn't just assume it was 'race over' after watching the first couple of laps. In modern F1, the forced reliability with the multiple-race engine rules etc. just make the racing feel so optimised and stale.

I am not a hater, I want F1 to be fantastic and exciting, but I can't deny what I see in front of me and it really is a nasty end product that F1 is producing at the moment.

I just set it to record, watch the first 3 laps, fast forward to the last 5 laps or stop if there is a crash.

What I mean by this is that the Monaco GP would always be a race that was mostly won on the Saturday, (it's fairly difficult to get past at the start with a short run to the first corner, so pole position was vital, e.g. Trulli in 2004). I accepted this and didn't mind it as it seemed ok to me for there to be a race where overtaking was almost impossible and for qualifying to be the main 'race'. For only one race a season, it was acceptable for it to work differently than the 16+ other races purely for variety's sake.

However this did mean that I generally wouldn't be too fussed about watching all of the race if it was dry weather. Once I saw the start and the opening lap or two, the race didn't have an awful lot going on except perhaps a bit later during the pit stops there might be a position change or two, so I could safely go and do something else and only sporadically pop back into the living room to check for any updates. I would consume the Monaco Grand Prix weekend with a certain pattern that I will call 'Monaco GP style' for reference later.

The worrying thing for me with modern day F1 is that most of the races these days could easily just be another 'Monaco' in terms of how I consume the races. So at Barcelona this weekend, after the first couple of laps I knew the race was essentially finished as a spectacle and that I had no real need to watch any more, I could be fairly confident that I would miss nothing of significance and so I just switched over to watch the Premier League final day. Low and behold I missed nothing bar a crash between two midfield cars and got back an hour and a half of my life as a result. It is a worrying trend that I can basically apply my 'Monaco GP style' consumption method to most of these non-Monaco races these days; the F1 World Championship is turning into 21 races at Monaco essentially.

Now I do need to watch the first couple of laps to tell if the lead cars are possibly going to race each other, (like in Bahrain this year), but I've seen enough races now to tell pretty quickly if the race is going to be a dull procession or not, (regardless of the circuit), and unfortunately far more often than not I can see a procession in the making.

Yes, previous eras weren't always super exciting either, but at least there was poor reliability to shake up the race results somewhat, (even the most reliable cars usually had a 20% chance of breaking down with some cars failing more than 50% of the time). In addition there were more race-ending mistakes with cars being stuck in the gravel etc. as drivers were spinning off pushing to the limit instead of conserving tyres; so the results were far less predictable and you couldn't just assume it was 'race over' after watching the first couple of laps. In modern F1, the forced reliability with the multiple-race engine rules etc. just make the racing feel so optimised and stale.

I am not a hater, I want F1 to be fantastic and exciting, but I can't deny what I see in front of me and it really is a nasty end product that F1 is producing at the moment.

I just set it to record, watch the first 3 laps, fast forward to the last 5 laps or stop if there is a crash.

F1 race consumed in 15 minutes or less.

What interesting things are you looking out for during the last 5 laps may I ask? There's maybe one race per season that might provide some drama and position changes for the top six places during this phase of the race, the other 95% of the time it is just drivers cruising to the finish and saving engine life. You can easily cut your Grand Prix consumption time down to 8 minutes or so if you fast forward to the last lap instead.

I guess there is the potential fastest lap 'excitement' these days, but all this really is is someone in 5th or 6th place stopping for fresh rubber and putting a quick lap in to nick an extra point that they don't deserve; it's not really racing and the concept is getting old for me already.

What I mean by this is that the Monaco GP would always be a race that was mostly won on the Saturday, (it's fairly difficult to get past at the start with a short run to the first corner, so pole position was vital, e.g. Trulli in 2004). I accepted this and didn't mind it as it seemed ok to me for there to be a race where overtaking was almost impossible and for qualifying to be the main 'race'. For only one race a season, it was acceptable for it to work differently than the 16+ other races purely for variety's sake.

However this did mean that I generally wouldn't be too fussed about watching all of the race if it was dry weather. Once I saw the start and the opening lap or two, the race didn't have an awful lot going on except perhaps a bit later during the pit stops there might be a position change or two, so I could safely go and do something else and only sporadically pop back into the living room to check for any updates. I would consume the Monaco Grand Prix weekend with a certain pattern that I will call 'Monaco GP style' for reference later.

The worrying thing for me with modern day F1 is that most of the races these days could easily just be another 'Monaco' in terms of how I consume the races. So at Barcelona this weekend, after the first couple of laps I knew the race was essentially finished as a spectacle and that I had no real need to watch any more, I could be fairly confident that I would miss nothing of significance and so I just switched over to watch the Premier League final day. Low and behold I missed nothing bar a crash between two midfield cars and got back an hour and a half of my life as a result. It is a worrying trend that I can basically apply my 'Monaco GP style' consumption method to most of these non-Monaco races these days; the F1 World Championship is turning into 21 races at Monaco essentially.

Now I do need to watch the first couple of laps to tell if the lead cars are possibly going to race each other, (like in Bahrain this year), but I've seen enough races now to tell pretty quickly if the race is going to be a dull procession or not, (regardless of the circuit), and unfortunately far more often than not I can see a procession in the making.

Yes, previous eras weren't always super exciting either, but at least there was poor reliability to shake up the race results somewhat, (even the most reliable cars usually had a 20% chance of breaking down with some cars failing more than 50% of the time). In addition there were more race-ending mistakes with cars being stuck in the gravel etc. as drivers were spinning off pushing to the limit instead of conserving tyres; so the results were far less predictable and you couldn't just assume it was 'race over' after watching the first couple of laps. In modern F1, the forced reliability with the multiple-race engine rules etc. just make the racing feel so optimised and stale.

I am not a hater, I want F1 to be fantastic and exciting, but I can't deny what I see in front of me and it really is a nasty end product that F1 is producing at the moment.

I just set it to record, watch the first 3 laps, fast forward to the last 5 laps or stop if there is a crash.

F1 race consumed in 15 minutes or less.

What interesting things are you looking out for during the last 5 laps may I ask? There's maybe one race per season that might provide some drama and position changes for the top six places during this phase of the race, the other 95% of the time it is just drivers cruising to the finish and saving engine life. You can easily cut your Grand Prix consumption time down to 8 minutes or so if you fast forward to the last lap instead.

I guess there is the potential fastest lap 'excitement' these days, but all this really is is someone in 5th or 6th place stopping for fresh rubber and putting a quick lap in to nick an extra point that they don't deserve; it's not really racing and the concept is getting old for me already.

midfield usually has some close driving.

I say driving because nobody really passes anyone and the tires are usually shot.

Have a fixed amount of tyre sets and compounds in a pool (not the literal kind) and the teams are allowed to pick theirs in reverse WCC order for the race weekend so the leading team would be left with mostly hard and medium tyres.

All the problems that need to be "fixed" in F1 have been discussed here years ago, and except for the current PU technological stupidity, appeared long before the new regulations (insane aero, oversized cars, complexity and uselessness of the PU technologies, hopelessly stupid tyres, butchering of tracks, silly rules and penalties, remote controlled drivers, racketting of tracks owners, money distribution, etc.). I don't believe that the ones who created the problems are the ones who will solve them. Especially when they make tons of money living in their bubble. It will go on till the bubble explodes.All we've seen since the end of the previous century is continuous additions of new silly complicated devices and rules to solve the problems created by the previous additions of new silly complicated devices and rules.It's just hopeless, cause the ones in charge (or involved - ie the teams) will never lay it down again and start something new, simple and smart. Formula 1 is a registered trade mark. Good... Let's dump it !

_________________As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

All the problems that need to be "fixed" in F1 have been discussed here years ago, and except for the current PU technological stupidity, appeared long before the new regulations (insane aero, oversized cars, complexity and uselessness of the PU technologies, hopelessly stupid tyres, butchering of tracks, silly rules and penalties, remote controlled drivers, racketting of tracks owners, money distribution, etc.). I don't believe that the ones who created the problems are the ones who will solve them. Especially when they make tons of money living in their bubble. It will go on till the bubble explodes.All we've seen since the end of the previous century is continuous additions of new silly complicated devices and rules to solve the problems created by the previous additions of new silly complicated devices and rules.It's just hopeless, cause the ones in charge (or involved - ie the teams) will never lay it down again and start something new, simple and smart. Formula 1 is a registered trade mark. Good... Let's dump it !

yes unfortunately there is an element of turkeys voting for Christmas here.

F1 has gotten themselves into this mess by trying to make it "road relevant" and more of a show. The former is completely irrelevant to the future of the sport but they've got it into their heads that it's essential. I think there's a case to be made that if it wasn't so road relevant the manufacturers wouldn't be pumping anywhere near the money they are into it and it might make it a more level playing field but we'll never know as long as the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari wield the power they do. The FIA is toothless and until they grow a spine we're stuck with it as it is.

And they appear to have gone down the WWE route as far as the show is concerned. They are obsessed with gimmicks and quick fixes but are seemingly terrified of addressing the actual underlying problems and are apparently hoping that if enough wool is pulled over people's eyes they won't notice.

But judging by some of the comments on here there's a sizeable audience for gimmicks and quick fixes so maybe they're not as daft as they might appear. It's not for the purists but clearly that's not their target audience

The tyre issue is a bit of a scapegoat here IMO. Tyres have always been degrading and sensitive - just the awareness (and sensor technology to understand and measure it) was lacking.

Thermal and circuit-specific sensitive tyres? Take the Michelins 1978-1980 or 2004 as striking examples. Or the Englebert tyres if you want to go back to the 1950s. Car-sensitive tyres? Remember the "tailormade" Bridgestones that significantly contributed to the Ferrari dominance in the early 2000s? And that no other team was able to get into the right temperature window?Much of the variations within the races of the 1970s and 1980s came from tyres: many overtakings resulted from one driver having to save tyres (or having over-used its tyres), while the other one was able to attack. Often the reverse happened later in the same race.

The tyre issue is a bit of a scapegoat here IMO. Tyres have always been degrading and sensitive - just the awareness (and sensor technology to understand and measure it) was lacking.

Thermal and circuit-specific sensitive tyres? Take the Michelins 1978-1980 or 2004 as striking examples. Or the Englebert tyres if you want to go back to the 1950s. Car-sensitive tyres? Remember the "tailormade" Bridgestones that significantly contributed to the Ferrari dominance in the early 2000s? And that no other team was able to get into the right temperature window?Much of the variations within the races of the 1970s and 1980s came from tyres: many overtakings resulted from one driver having to save tyres (or having over-used its tyres), while the other one was able to attack. Often the reverse happened later in the same race.

I don't think this is true at all. We've never had tyres as thermally sensitive as the Pirellis before. Never. Tyres used to be designed for performance and, while it's true that there was a period where teams and tyre manufacturers were closely aligned that doesn't mean that everyone else suffered because of it. It's only since 2011 that tyres have been designed as performance inhibitors and is probably the first time in F1 that a major component has been specifically designed to reduce performance rather than enhance it.

That's not to say that tyres have never needed to be managed, but the degree of tyre management is unique to the Pirelli era and it's currently overshadowing almost everything else the teams are doing

They copy each other all the time anyway. Its why after several years of steady regulations you tend to see a convergence of designs and the timesheets much closer together. In doing it this way it simply speeds up the process.

The problem is that this season is not showing a convergence on the timesheets, Mercedes seem further ahead than before, (i.e. 2017 and 2018), and the midfield have not caught up in any significant way. What is worse is that of the seven midfield teams going into this season, zero of them have made any noticeable gains on the front team. They have effectively seven bites at the cherry so surely from the law of averages at least one or two of them would have found some lucky breakthroughs to at least get within a second of Mercedes instead of all of them consitently being 1.5+ seconds off the pace?

The fact that year after year, zero out of seven have made any significant gains on the lead team, is very worrying indeed. For example, even a team like Stewart could go from being well off the pace in 1997 and 1998, to being moderately competitive in 1999, so previous eras were better for season-on-season shake-ups of the running order.

In modern day F1, a team like McLaren have either been in the lower midfield or middle of midfield during this whole era, (2014 onwards), and they seem completely unable to make any significant strides forwards, not even just for one flash in the pan season say, where they are randomly third fastest team 0.6 seconds off the ultimate pace for that year for example.

F1 Racer - aero regs changed this year. Different front wing, rear wing and barge board rules massively changing how the air moves around the cars. Every season where regs change the field spreads out. A season where regs dont change, the field bunches up.

The tyre issue is a bit of a scapegoat here IMO. Tyres have always been degrading and sensitive - just the awareness (and sensor technology to understand and measure it) was lacking.

Thermal and circuit-specific sensitive tyres? Take the Michelins 1978-1980 or 2004 as striking examples. Or the Englebert tyres if you want to go back to the 1950s. Car-sensitive tyres? Remember the "tailormade" Bridgestones that significantly contributed to the Ferrari dominance in the early 2000s? And that no other team was able to get into the right temperature window?Much of the variations within the races of the 1970s and 1980s came from tyres: many overtakings resulted from one driver having to save tyres (or having over-used its tyres), while the other one was able to attack. Often the reverse happened later in the same race.

I don't think this is true at all. We've never had tyres as thermally sensitive as the Pirellis before. Never. Tyres used to be designed for performance and, while it's true that there was a period where teams and tyre manufacturers were closely aligned that doesn't mean that everyone else suffered because of it. It's only since 2011 that tyres have been designed as performance inhibitors and is probably the first time in F1 that a major component has been specifically designed to reduce performance rather than enhance it.

That's not to say that tyres have never needed to be managed, but the degree of tyre management is unique to the Pirelli era and it's currently overshadowing almost everything else the teams are doing

Why do you think that Pirelli 2019 tyres are more sensitive than Michelin 1978 tyres, for instance?

The higher focus comes from more sensor data. In former times, teams and drivers just did not know why their tyres were better or worse now and then - and how to handle that.

The tyre issue is a bit of a scapegoat here IMO. Tyres have always been degrading and sensitive - just the awareness (and sensor technology to understand and measure it) was lacking.

Thermal and circuit-specific sensitive tyres? Take the Michelins 1978-1980 or 2004 as striking examples. Or the Englebert tyres if you want to go back to the 1950s. Car-sensitive tyres? Remember the "tailormade" Bridgestones that significantly contributed to the Ferrari dominance in the early 2000s? And that no other team was able to get into the right temperature window?Much of the variations within the races of the 1970s and 1980s came from tyres: many overtakings resulted from one driver having to save tyres (or having over-used its tyres), while the other one was able to attack. Often the reverse happened later in the same race.

I don't think this is true at all. We've never had tyres as thermally sensitive as the Pirellis before. Never. Tyres used to be designed for performance and, while it's true that there was a period where teams and tyre manufacturers were closely aligned that doesn't mean that everyone else suffered because of it. It's only since 2011 that tyres have been designed as performance inhibitors and is probably the first time in F1 that a major component has been specifically designed to reduce performance rather than enhance it.

That's not to say that tyres have never needed to be managed, but the degree of tyre management is unique to the Pirelli era and it's currently overshadowing almost everything else the teams are doing

Why do you think that Pirelli 2019 tyres are more sensitive than Michelin 1978 tyres, for instance?

The higher focus comes from more sensor data. In former times, teams and drivers just did not know why their tyres were better or worse now and then - and how to handle that.

Quite simply because these tyres are built with degradation in mind, whereas previously they weren't. Until Pirelli's sole supplier deal F1 tyres were designed - like every other component - for maximum performance and creating ones that handicapped the cars was counter-productive - which team was going to choose a tyre which deliberately compromised their drivers? Now Pirelli can produce comedy tyres to their hearts content because teams don't have a choice and deliberately causing upsets by having tyres drop off is a core part of the agenda

All the problems that need to be "fixed" in F1 have been discussed here years ago, and except for the current PU technological stupidity, appeared long before the new regulations (insane aero, oversized cars, complexity and uselessness of the PU technologies, hopelessly stupid tyres, butchering of tracks, silly rules and penalties, remote controlled drivers, racketting of tracks owners, money distribution, etc.). I don't believe that the ones who created the problems are the ones who will solve them. Especially when they make tons of money living in their bubble. It will go on till the bubble explodes.All we've seen since the end of the previous century is continuous additions of new silly complicated devices and rules to solve the problems created by the previous additions of new silly complicated devices and rules.It's just hopeless, cause the ones in charge (or involved - ie the teams) will never lay it down again and start something new, simple and smart. Formula 1 is a registered trade mark. Good... Let's dump it !

yes unfortunately there is an element of turkeys voting for Christmas here.

F1 has gotten themselves into this mess by trying to make it "road relevant" and more of a show. The former is completely irrelevant to the future of the sport but they've got it into their heads that it's essential. I think there's a case to be made that if it wasn't so road relevant the manufacturers wouldn't be pumping anywhere near the money they are into it and it might make it a more level playing field but we'll never know as long as the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari wield the power they do. The FIA is toothless and until they grow a spine we're stuck with it as it is.

And they appear to have gone down the WWE route as far as the show is concerned. They are obsessed with gimmicks and quick fixes but are seemingly terrified of addressing the actual underlying problems and are apparently hoping that if enough wool is pulled over people's eyes they won't notice.

But judging by some of the comments on here there's a sizeable audience for gimmicks and quick fixes so maybe they're not as daft as they might appear. It's not for the purists but clearly that's not their target audience

Trying to make it "road relevant" ? I won't bet on that. Current F1 cars are further every year from being "road relevant". Except for the safety devices, what can be transfered to road cars ? Current PU has no future at all, except in next year 20 formula 1 cars. Stupid tyres just deserve the Guinness Book of records, same chapter as the dodo. What about braking systems that cost a life long of earnings of an average human ? And the aero, except on scooter for hypsters, I don't see how it's road relevant - today's F1 car wouldn't be able to run on the old Nurburgring, which is rather ridiculous after bringing "road relevantiness" as an excuse.The simple fact is that the F1 use of their bunch of renowned experts is another proof, just like most of the "think tanks" of experts usually do, that, contrary to the common motto, several well shaped brains together can be more stupid than a lonely one.

_________________As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

Open intellectual property. In a nutshell, allow open access to the detailed blue prints of the cars and individual components. Not far off the concept of customer parts but instead they see the design of each part and how they go together - that way each team can make the components themselves and allows them to make a "frankenstein" car. Its a similar idea to what happens in road cycling - all bike parts and accessories (from the bike itself through to helmets, shoes and the lycra they wear) have to be on the open market limiting any mechanical advantage a ride may have.

Reminds me of an excellent rule that I heard of from Finnish amateur rallying:

No technical restrictions on the car you can enter. The only caveat is that at any point in between events, anyone can buy your car off you for a fixed nominal amount.

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

My point is that it won't 'sort the men from the boys'. It might well introduce some more randomness, but that's about all.

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

My point is that it won't 'sort the men from the boys'. It might well introduce some more randomness, but that's about all.

As funny as TedStriker made it sound (I agree with you!), I guess some would grasp it better or faster than the others. Senna for example was praised for driving with one hand on the wheel through difficult sections while shifting with the other, where other drivers didn't try that. I can see what TedStriker meant, unless he meant something completely different and I'm way off the mark here. But yeah, drivers would adapt, there's no question about it.

Also, a bit of randomness would be good I think, driver mistakes like that are pretty much eliminated in this era and they did add to the skill of the driver. But I wouldn't want to go backwards, else we may as well be racing auto unions with bicycle tyres...

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

yes agree. Having a mechanical gearshift introduces opportunities for error that doesn't exist these days. It's impossible to over-rev the engines with these automatic units, for example, while drivers can no longer miss a gear. In the past drivers couldn't change gear mid-corner either as they needed to keep both hands on the wheel, whereas now it's the norm.

It is a technical step backwards and I can see the argument for that, but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. I would get rid of the hybrids, too, at least in their current configuration, but although that's technically a backwards step I think they've done more damage to F1 than possibly anything other than the tyres and at some point you have to remove any prejudices and look at what would make a good F1 regardless of what the current situation is now. What could you do with a clean slate if you were designing a pinnacle racing series, completely ignoring what is happening now, and I'm pretty sure if that question was taken seriously we wouldn't be including things like comedy tyres, DRS and technology so advanced that it shuts the door on all potential new entrants.

In the Brundle article posted earlier he echoes some of the things Johansson said in his blog and which have also been mentioned at various times by the likes of Lauda, Prost and if I'm not mistaken current drivers including Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton (although not 100% on that last one). Pretty much all of them talk about making F1 simpler and making it more about the drivers, not the car. And if that's the case then that would also include removing much of the electronic driver aids that don't really add to the spectacle but which appear to exist solely to justify the manufacturers' budgets.

And doing so wouldn't necessarily make the cars much slower, if at all. Although qualifying times have generally improved, they actually run races slower now than they did in 2004, which means in terms of racing speeds current cars aren't really that quick. This year's Bahrain Grand Prix took six minutes longer to complete than it did in 2004. In Barcelona I think they changed the configuration slightly to be fair (they added a chicane), but even so it took them eight minutes longer to complete this year's race.

So other than being an engineers wet dream I'm not really sure exactly what tangible benefits all the billions poured into the sport since 2004 have actually shown and I'm not 100% convinced that the technical argument should carry all that much weight.

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

yes agree. Having a mechanical gearshift introduces opportunities for error that doesn't exist these days. It's impossible to over-rev the engines with these automatic units, for example, while drivers can no longer miss a gear. In the past drivers couldn't change gear mid-corner either as they needed to keep both hands on the wheel, whereas now it's the norm.

It is a technical step backwards and I can see the argument for that, but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. I would get rid of the hybrids, too, at least in their current configuration, but although that's technically a backwards step I think they've done more damage to F1 than possibly anything other than the tyres and at some point you have to remove any prejudices and look at what would make a good F1 regardless of what the current situation is now. What could you do with a clean slate if you were designing a pinnacle racing series, completely ignoring what is happening now, and I'm pretty sure if that question was taken seriously we wouldn't be including things like comedy tyres, DRS and technology so advanced that it shuts the door on all potential new entrants.

In the Brundle article posted earlier he echoes some of the things Johansson said in his blog and which have also been mentioned at various times by the likes of Lauda, Prost and if I'm not mistaken current drivers including Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton (although not 100% on that last one). Pretty much all of them talk about making F1 simpler and making it more about the drivers, not the car. And if that's the case then that would also include removing much of the electronic driver aids that don't really add to the spectacle but which appear to exist solely to justify the manufacturers' budgets.

And doing so wouldn't necessarily make the cars much slower, if at all. Although qualifying times have generally improved, they actually run races slower now than they did in 2004, which means in terms of racing speeds current cars aren't really that quick. This year's Bahrain Grand Prix took six minutes longer to complete than it did in 2004. In Barcelona I think they changed the configuration slightly to be fair (they added a chicane), but even so it took them eight minutes longer to complete this year's race.

So other than being an engineers wet dream I'm not really sure exactly what tangible benefits all the billions poured into the sport since 2004 have actually shown and I'm not 100% convinced that the technical argument should carry all that much weight.

Completely agree Zoue.

F1 needs to assess what it wants to be primarily in my view. Pinnacle of technology? Road relevant? Spec series? The fastest series on the planet? A WWE performance show? Affordable? What? Because some of these options directly contradict each other in my head.

I suspect a clean slate is out of the question, there are too many investments in the current form to do that, however we can have a gradual transition I guess. I agree though, the monster we have today is a self-created situation that hasn't achieved much since 2004 and the racing hasn't improved.

This last bit though is what always bugged me; what do people mean by fixing F1 and improving the racing? The racing in F1 was never THAT close, we had cars with over 4 sec in difference in the past, in their own race frankly. It's true that when the regs stayed the same for a while we got some convergence/parity between the teams and even sometimes two teams just happened to get it right and be very close, but as a general rule they were never the neck to neck close series with loads of overtakes that the people seem to crave. So if people want that, then this sport isn't really for them, they are after a spec series.

And the F1 format wasn't a problem in itself really. The problem starts when someone does their job well and dominates, then they shuffle the rules to eliminate this advantage, instead of letting the others catch up. It's the others that need to up their game, it's not the ones who got it right that have to be penalised.

Manual gearboxes with conventional 3 pedal control. That would sort the men from the boys.

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

yes agree. Having a mechanical gearshift introduces opportunities for error that doesn't exist these days. It's impossible to over-rev the engines with these automatic units, for example, while drivers can no longer miss a gear. In the past drivers couldn't change gear mid-corner either as they needed to keep both hands on the wheel, whereas now it's the norm.

It is a technical step backwards and I can see the argument for that, but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. I would get rid of the hybrids, too, at least in their current configuration, but although that's technically a backwards step I think they've done more damage to F1 than possibly anything other than the tyres and at some point you have to remove any prejudices and look at what would make a good F1 regardless of what the current situation is now. What could you do with a clean slate if you were designing a pinnacle racing series, completely ignoring what is happening now, and I'm pretty sure if that question was taken seriously we wouldn't be including things like comedy tyres, DRS and technology so advanced that it shuts the door on all potential new entrants.

In the Brundle article posted earlier he echoes some of the things Johansson said in his blog and which have also been mentioned at various times by the likes of Lauda, Prost and if I'm not mistaken current drivers including Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton (although not 100% on that last one). Pretty much all of them talk about making F1 simpler and making it more about the drivers, not the car. And if that's the case then that would also include removing much of the electronic driver aids that don't really add to the spectacle but which appear to exist solely to justify the manufacturers' budgets.

And doing so wouldn't necessarily make the cars much slower, if at all. Although qualifying times have generally improved, they actually run races slower now than they did in 2004, which means in terms of racing speeds current cars aren't really that quick. This year's Bahrain Grand Prix took six minutes longer to complete than it did in 2004. In Barcelona I think they changed the configuration slightly to be fair (they added a chicane), but even so it took them eight minutes longer to complete this year's race.

So other than being an engineers wet dream I'm not really sure exactly what tangible benefits all the billions poured into the sport since 2004 have actually shown and I'm not 100% convinced that the technical argument should carry all that much weight.

Completely agree Zoue.

F1 needs to assess what it wants to be primarily in my view. Pinnacle of technology? Road relevant? Spec series? The fastest series on the planet? A WWE performance show? Affordable? What? Because some of these options directly contradict each other in my head.

I suspect a clean slate is out of the question, there are too many investments in the current form to do that, however we can have a gradual transition I guess. I agree though, the monster we have today is a self-created situation that hasn't achieved much since 2004 and the racing hasn't improved.

This last bit though is what always bugged me; what do people mean by fixing F1 and improving the racing? The racing in F1 was never THAT close, we had cars with over 4 sec in difference in the past, in their own race frankly. It's true that when the regs stayed the same for a while we got some convergence/parity between the teams and even sometimes two teams just happened to get it right and be very close, but as a general rule they were never the neck to neck close series with loads of overtakes that the people seem to crave. So if people want that, then this sport isn't really for them, they are after a spec series.

And the F1 format wasn't a problem in itself really. The problem starts when someone does their job well and dominates, then they shuffle the rules to eliminate this advantage, instead of letting the others catch up. It's the others that need to up their game, it's not the ones who got it right that have to be penalised.

Meh, I'm rumbling now, I'll stop it here

you make an interesting point about the racing. I would probably rename it competitiveness. Right now no Mercedes customer will ever challenge Mercedes, just like no Ferrari customer will ever challenge Ferrari. Jury is still out on Renault but I strongly suspect if and when they do finally get competitive then they will also pull and advantage over McLaren and won't let them challenge them, either. Hierarchy is locked in in a way that's never been done before.

And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

It really wouldn't. The Sky team talked about this during the past GP weekend, and Anthony Davidson was dead on when he said that it's just another skill every driver will learn. There's nothing inherently difficult about driving a stick shift -- any of the current F1 drivers could do it just fine.

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

yes agree. Having a mechanical gearshift introduces opportunities for error that doesn't exist these days. It's impossible to over-rev the engines with these automatic units, for example, while drivers can no longer miss a gear. In the past drivers couldn't change gear mid-corner either as they needed to keep both hands on the wheel, whereas now it's the norm.

It is a technical step backwards and I can see the argument for that, but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. I would get rid of the hybrids, too, at least in their current configuration, but although that's technically a backwards step I think they've done more damage to F1 than possibly anything other than the tyres and at some point you have to remove any prejudices and look at what would make a good F1 regardless of what the current situation is now. What could you do with a clean slate if you were designing a pinnacle racing series, completely ignoring what is happening now, and I'm pretty sure if that question was taken seriously we wouldn't be including things like comedy tyres, DRS and technology so advanced that it shuts the door on all potential new entrants.

In the Brundle article posted earlier he echoes some of the things Johansson said in his blog and which have also been mentioned at various times by the likes of Lauda, Prost and if I'm not mistaken current drivers including Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton (although not 100% on that last one). Pretty much all of them talk about making F1 simpler and making it more about the drivers, not the car. And if that's the case then that would also include removing much of the electronic driver aids that don't really add to the spectacle but which appear to exist solely to justify the manufacturers' budgets.

And doing so wouldn't necessarily make the cars much slower, if at all. Although qualifying times have generally improved, they actually run races slower now than they did in 2004, which means in terms of racing speeds current cars aren't really that quick. This year's Bahrain Grand Prix took six minutes longer to complete than it did in 2004. In Barcelona I think they changed the configuration slightly to be fair (they added a chicane), but even so it took them eight minutes longer to complete this year's race.

So other than being an engineers wet dream I'm not really sure exactly what tangible benefits all the billions poured into the sport since 2004 have actually shown and I'm not 100% convinced that the technical argument should carry all that much weight.

Completely agree Zoue.

F1 needs to assess what it wants to be primarily in my view. Pinnacle of technology? Road relevant? Spec series? The fastest series on the planet? A WWE performance show? Affordable? What? Because some of these options directly contradict each other in my head.

I suspect a clean slate is out of the question, there are too many investments in the current form to do that, however we can have a gradual transition I guess. I agree though, the monster we have today is a self-created situation that hasn't achieved much since 2004 and the racing hasn't improved.

This last bit though is what always bugged me; what do people mean by fixing F1 and improving the racing? The racing in F1 was never THAT close, we had cars with over 4 sec in difference in the past, in their own race frankly. It's true that when the regs stayed the same for a while we got some convergence/parity between the teams and even sometimes two teams just happened to get it right and be very close, but as a general rule they were never the neck to neck close series with loads of overtakes that the people seem to crave. So if people want that, then this sport isn't really for them, they are after a spec series.

And the F1 format wasn't a problem in itself really. The problem starts when someone does their job well and dominates, then they shuffle the rules to eliminate this advantage, instead of letting the others catch up. It's the others that need to up their game, it's not the ones who got it right that have to be penalised.

Meh, I'm rumbling now, I'll stop it here

you make an interesting point about the racing. I would probably rename it competitiveness. Right now no Mercedes customer will ever challenge Mercedes, just like no Ferrari customer will ever challenge Ferrari. Jury is still out on Renault but I strongly suspect if and when they do finally get competitive then they will also pull and advantage over McLaren and won't let them challenge them, either. Hierarchy is locked in in a way that's never been done before.

And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

Ten years (and more) ago , I was hoping for a breakaway series, which never came. They gave more money and power to the already over-fed big teams, and the case was closed.May be the breakaway should be discussed between the hopeless midfield teams, not the "historical" fat owners. What do they have to lose ?

_________________As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

The idea is not if they could do it or not. The argument is that drivers made mistakes back in the day of the sticks; and these were drivers that were used to them. These mistakes can spice up the race. Although it is a step backwards after 25 or so years to go back to the sticks, more of a leap backwards if you want.

yes agree. Having a mechanical gearshift introduces opportunities for error that doesn't exist these days. It's impossible to over-rev the engines with these automatic units, for example, while drivers can no longer miss a gear. In the past drivers couldn't change gear mid-corner either as they needed to keep both hands on the wheel, whereas now it's the norm.

It is a technical step backwards and I can see the argument for that, but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. I would get rid of the hybrids, too, at least in their current configuration, but although that's technically a backwards step I think they've done more damage to F1 than possibly anything other than the tyres and at some point you have to remove any prejudices and look at what would make a good F1 regardless of what the current situation is now. What could you do with a clean slate if you were designing a pinnacle racing series, completely ignoring what is happening now, and I'm pretty sure if that question was taken seriously we wouldn't be including things like comedy tyres, DRS and technology so advanced that it shuts the door on all potential new entrants.

In the Brundle article posted earlier he echoes some of the things Johansson said in his blog and which have also been mentioned at various times by the likes of Lauda, Prost and if I'm not mistaken current drivers including Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton (although not 100% on that last one). Pretty much all of them talk about making F1 simpler and making it more about the drivers, not the car. And if that's the case then that would also include removing much of the electronic driver aids that don't really add to the spectacle but which appear to exist solely to justify the manufacturers' budgets.

And doing so wouldn't necessarily make the cars much slower, if at all. Although qualifying times have generally improved, they actually run races slower now than they did in 2004, which means in terms of racing speeds current cars aren't really that quick. This year's Bahrain Grand Prix took six minutes longer to complete than it did in 2004. In Barcelona I think they changed the configuration slightly to be fair (they added a chicane), but even so it took them eight minutes longer to complete this year's race.

So other than being an engineers wet dream I'm not really sure exactly what tangible benefits all the billions poured into the sport since 2004 have actually shown and I'm not 100% convinced that the technical argument should carry all that much weight.

Completely agree Zoue.

F1 needs to assess what it wants to be primarily in my view. Pinnacle of technology? Road relevant? Spec series? The fastest series on the planet? A WWE performance show? Affordable? What? Because some of these options directly contradict each other in my head.

I suspect a clean slate is out of the question, there are too many investments in the current form to do that, however we can have a gradual transition I guess. I agree though, the monster we have today is a self-created situation that hasn't achieved much since 2004 and the racing hasn't improved.

This last bit though is what always bugged me; what do people mean by fixing F1 and improving the racing? The racing in F1 was never THAT close, we had cars with over 4 sec in difference in the past, in their own race frankly. It's true that when the regs stayed the same for a while we got some convergence/parity between the teams and even sometimes two teams just happened to get it right and be very close, but as a general rule they were never the neck to neck close series with loads of overtakes that the people seem to crave. So if people want that, then this sport isn't really for them, they are after a spec series.

And the F1 format wasn't a problem in itself really. The problem starts when someone does their job well and dominates, then they shuffle the rules to eliminate this advantage, instead of letting the others catch up. It's the others that need to up their game, it's not the ones who got it right that have to be penalised.

Meh, I'm rumbling now, I'll stop it here

you make an interesting point about the racing. I would probably rename it competitiveness. Right now no Mercedes customer will ever challenge Mercedes, just like no Ferrari customer will ever challenge Ferrari. Jury is still out on Renault but I strongly suspect if and when they do finally get competitive then they will also pull and advantage over McLaren and won't let them challenge them, either. Hierarchy is locked in in a way that's never been done before.

And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

Fully agree that the Manufacturers' stranglehold on the sport is one of the biggest issues, but until the FIA and LM grow a pair that won't change.

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

Ten years (and more) ago , I was hoping for a breakaway series, which never came. They gave more money and power to the already over-fed big teams, and the case was closed.May be the breakaway should be discussed between the hopeless midfield teams, not the "historical" fat owners. What do they have to lose ?

Trouble is the breakaway was led by the big teams then, so we'd have had more of the same. And the smaller teams don't really have the clout to do it.

In the Brundle article I posted earlier he says the 2021 regs are already looking like being watered down as the big teams exert pressure to maintain their position. I honestly think as long as the teams have a say in the sport's future things will continue to get worse.

I would suggest F1 needs the following before even considering the next set of rules:

1. Remove the teams from the decision-making process. The FA doesn't ask football teams how to make the rules, so I don't see why the FIA needs the teams' permission2. Publicly end the desire to make F1 "road relevant." All this is is an excuse for the manufacturers to invest billions as it justifies their R&D. Without this carrot, they are less likely to want to spend they way they do and it might level the playing field somewhat. Road relevance is an irrelevance that F1 does not need.

After that they should sit down and think of rules without worrying about what the teams think. It won't ever happen, though.

Ten years (and more) ago , I was hoping for a breakaway series, which never came. They gave more money and power to the already over-fed big teams, and the case was closed.May be the breakaway should be discussed between the hopeless midfield teams, not the "historical" fat owners. What do they have to lose ?

Trouble is the breakaway was led by the big teams then, so we'd have had more of the same. And the smaller teams don't really have the clout to do it.

In the Brundle article I posted earlier he says the 2021 regs are already looking like being watered down as the big teams exert pressure to maintain their position. I honestly think as long as the teams have a say in the sport's future things will continue to get worse.

I would suggest F1 needs the following before even considering the next set of rules:

1. Remove the teams from the decision-making process. The FA doesn't ask football teams how to make the rules, so I don't see why the FIA needs the teams' permission2. Publicly end the desire to make F1 "road relevant." All this is is an excuse for the manufacturers to invest billions as it justifies their R&D. Without this carrot, they are less likely to want to spend they way they do and it might level the playing field somewhat. Road relevance is an irrelevance that F1 does not need.

After that they should sit down and think of rules without worrying about what the teams think. It won't ever happen, though.

In fact, the breakaway threat was just blackmailing to get more power and money... Not sure that the same threat from midfield teams that know they don't get a chance to compete with the 3 class bullies would be inefficient : they should threaten to quit in 2021 unless there is a complete reshuffle of the "sport" (and get the guts to do it if not successful, which is another story). LM and the FIA would be let only with Mercedes, Red Bull and its minion, Ferrari and (may be) Alfa Saubeo. Not that it would change anything to the races, though...

_________________As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

Ten years (and more) ago , I was hoping for a breakaway series, which never came. They gave more money and power to the already over-fed big teams, and the case was closed.May be the breakaway should be discussed between the hopeless midfield teams, not the "historical" fat owners. What do they have to lose ?

Trouble is the breakaway was led by the big teams then, so we'd have had more of the same. And the smaller teams don't really have the clout to do it.

In the Brundle article I posted earlier he says the 2021 regs are already looking like being watered down as the big teams exert pressure to maintain their position. I honestly think as long as the teams have a say in the sport's future things will continue to get worse.

I would suggest F1 needs the following before even considering the next set of rules:

1. Remove the teams from the decision-making process. The FA doesn't ask football teams how to make the rules, so I don't see why the FIA needs the teams' permission2. Publicly end the desire to make F1 "road relevant." All this is is an excuse for the manufacturers to invest billions as it justifies their R&D. Without this carrot, they are less likely to want to spend they way they do and it might level the playing field somewhat. Road relevance is an irrelevance that F1 does not need.

After that they should sit down and think of rules without worrying about what the teams think. It won't ever happen, though.

They've dawdled too much on these 2021 regs already. To attract new teams they needed to have them set 12 months ago.

Liberty just need to grow some balls. Design some regs that would be great for competition and slap them on the table in front of the teams. Then the teams can decide if they are going to take a fairy cakes or get off the pot. If that means the remaining teams running 3 cars until more teams join again (Which they will if Liberty can draw up a competitive and affordable formula) then so be it.

It's massively unhealthy for any competitors to have a say in defining the rules of the contest and even more unhealthy when it's only the have's of this world that get a say.